Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1887-10-07

Total ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. $40
OF the bills passed, IA were in the first
session of that Congress and POP in the sec
ond session.
OF the bills vetoed, l0l were in the first
session and % in the second.
of the bills become laws without the
| Presidents 's signature, lj4 were in the first
session and , in the second.
The 'pocketed" bill was in the first ses-
sion
make up this table from the Congress,
sional Record, the United States Statutes
aud other data, and believe the figures to
be exactly correct.
The truth, therefore, is that President
| Cleveland approved about two-thirds of
the bills passed, vetoed over one-eighth
and lodged as to the remainder
Second As 10 the suggestions Of the
statement Its purpose is to contrast the
Grant, Hayes and Arthur pension records
with Ceveand's, to the advantage Of the
latter Now what are the facts about those
administrations
OF the 4g3 pension bills passed under the
Grant administration. Grant vetoed eight.
| Two. because the claimants names were
then ON the pension roll. Another because
the clause IN the act about the minor chill
dren of the soldier had no meaning. Three
were vetoed because the names Of the
claimants were borne ON the army rolls as
deserters Another. because the name of
the pensiOner was not correctly given. And
the last, because the soldiers company was
not correctly stated He signed 4S5. This
is Grants record on pension vetoes.
What is Hayess and Arthur's record
Under Hayes, BOB private pension bills
were passed. He approved them ALL
Under Arthur 136 private pension bills
were passed. He approved them all.
Cleveland's approvals were but 66S out
of $40 passed, and are thus 100 less than
Grants and Hayes's combined, and 6s less
than Arthurs, out of a total 1913 greater
than the former and 2l3 greater than the
latter.
The contrast is what might have been ex
pected in advance of investigation. Grant
HAYES and Arthur were all actually engag
ed in the suppression of the rebellion, ant
were in full personal sympathy with th'
| armies of the Union. Cleveland's recorC
AS President is not out Of harmony witt
his passiveness as a citizen during th'
struggle.
1t is true. as claimed that Clevelan,
signed the widows increase bill and tn,
crippled soldiers increase bill. 1t is ais
true that he signed the Mexican war pen
sion bill which awards a service pension a
distinguished from "A disability pension Il
the soldiers of that war. But it is also tru
that within ten days thereafter he vetoe'
the bill which proposed application of sub
stantially the same principle To the soldier
of the army of the Union. His friend
have the floor to align that extraordinar.
discrimination against the Union soldier,
with this extraordinary pretension o
friendship for them
1t is part of the same program, also, 3
claim that at this date there are more Cnio
soldiers in the government service than a
anv previous period. This ought TO b
true, considering that the laws inherited b
this administration from its predecessor
distinctly direct that preference shall a
ways be given, other things being equal, t
the honorably discharged Union soldiers
II it be not true, this administration mus
have steadily violated the law. But in vie'
of the proved misstatements touching per
sion bills, and of what is known concernin
the methods adopted in filling those classt
of appointments to which the civil servic
law was construed not TO apply, and as
which, therefore, there was held to be Il
limit to the discretion of the appOintin
power, am warranted in saying that unit
this last claim be clearly proved by pull
lished lists of removals and appointment
made it must suffer from the discred
thrown upon its twin.
| am very respectfully,
Your obedient servant,
EDWARD MCPHERSON.